- From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:21:37 -0500
- To: love26@gorge.net (William Loughborough), w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
William, I like this, it's very simple and straightforward - and with images. yahoo. I like this as a top layer. The checkpoint text in the draft I'm about to release is still cumbersome or possibly confusing at times. At any rate, we'll have to see how to synch these up. Based on the theory that people misinterpret checkpoints because they only read the checklist, if we used shorter catch phrases or provided a Guideline Guide instead of a checklist, people would have to read a bit more about what we're saying - they would have to touch the next layer. Although, would this satisfy the many people who use the checklist on its own, ala Dick Brown's experiences at Microsoft? He has talked about taking just the checklist to developers. It's something to consider, although probably not something we will change too much before we push this draft out for the public eye. I propose we add this question to the open issues list. Unless, we package the Guideline Guide, the Guidelines w/checkpoints, and the Checkpoint map between 1.0 and 2.0 for our first public draft. most excellent work geeze. --wendy At 11:24 AM 1/10/01 , William Loughborough wrote: >Mainly for my own amusement/clarification I've put up a >crude/stripped-down template at http://rdf.pair.com/xguide.htm without >intending it to be actual proposed language or a comprehensive checkpoint >set - also the links' destinations are spurious. > >However, it does help clear things up for at least one old mind. > > >-- >Love. > ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE -- wendy a chisholm world wide web consortium web accessibility initiative madison, wi usa tel: +1 608 663 6346 /--
Received on Thursday, 11 January 2001 11:17:01 UTC